CB284414@ohio.edu
(CONTENT WARNING: THE ATTACHED LINKS MAY BE GRAPHIC TO SOME VIEWERS)
The taking and publicizing of graphic photos is something that has sparked heated debate in American history. We can trace back photos as far as 1862 with Alexander Gardner's photo series "The Dead of Antietam". This was shocking to the public when it went into an exhibition where it was shown to civilians in New York City. Prior to this battle, no battle ever had seen this many American casualties in a single day and no civilians had ever seen such a depiction of wartime violence. Alexander Gardner was able to capture an image that brought America closer to understanding of the horrors of war.
An exhibition is one thing, people have to pay to get in and typically are fully aware of the nature of the content they are about to witness, but what happens when we start taking graphic pictures, ones like Alexander Gardner's and show them on broadcast news or heavily circulated print publications? It sparks a new, polarizing debate on what is to be shown and what is to be hidden. Gary Knight, co-founder of the VII Photo Agency, believes that publishing and capturing the photos are two different jobs and are to be treated as such. Knight believes that photographers "need to record those things, but they do not need to be published." Knight's sentiment is widely shared and he claims that when the photographer captures and image a discourse needs to be held in order to ensure that the photo is accurate and newsworthy prior to publication. In a society where many journalists and photographers are looking for the most provocative or most sensational images to place on their front page, it's hard to understand why we need to show these images, but I believe there is a reason to show these images as a way of understanding the human condition.
Photojournalism has always had a way of capturing events in a style that words can't do. Most people are familiar with Jeff Widener's "Tank Man." Though this photo isn't graphic, it is a perfect example of how a photo can be seen as something more, in this case Tank Man's solitary act of resistance was a beacon of justice for many in Beijing and around the world. Even heavily criticized photos have something to say that can't be portrayed in words, with this we can look at the example of Kevin Carter's Pulitzer Prize winning photo "The Vulture and The Little Girl". Many people were upset with Carter for his not "helping" the child on the ground. This controversy brings up a question about what the job of the photographer is. I believe that Carter was within his ethical duty by just capturing the image. It is to be considered that he was there to document the famine and show how the UN was not fighting the famine properly, his job was not to save people, no matter how tragic the situation.
So how can photojournalists know when they're in the right for capturing an image? Al Tompkins of Poynter writes that any photojournalist should remind themselves of three things when capturing an image. The three things are:
- Keep images in context - This is important because context and framing s everything to an image and can completely change the way the audience looks at it.
- Tone and degree are critical - Tomkins believes that how prominently and how often you show the images is an important factor in the ethics of images. He claims that you should always give a warning if you're showing graphic content.
- Weigh the public's need to know - Tompkins says that we should always approach photos from a journalistic standpoint, which means adhering to the same high ethical standards of journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment